Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

To put it in summary -- her claims were tossed not because the court made any findings about them -- it never got to that --- it was tossed on other grounds. So that has no bearing at all on the 47.1. It was intended exactly for this type of situation. A common tactic when accused on SH is to sue the complaining person with no real basis. This law was meant to stop that or at least limit it. So yes this is what the law was for. Unclear what will happen. Everything from nothing to a large award is on the table as this is a new law. I suspect this will also be settled at some point. I doubt this goes all the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers: is the lawsuit basically over and Blake lost?

In late March, 10 of Blakes’s 13 claims were thrown out by a federal judge, including all of the sexual harassment claims and anything related to individual defendants like Justin Baldoni.

Three claims remained, all related to retaliation and contract issues. That obviously significantly narrowed and weakened her case.

We then found out a couple of weeks ago that they settled the remaining 3 claims. We’ve now found out since then there was no money exchanged in the settlement so the $300 million she was seeking in damages she did not get. There also apparently does not seem to be an NDA, which leads many to believe Blake’s team did not have a lot of leverage in deciding the settlement since they came away with so little.

So the big case that we’ve been talking about for the last 18 months is over. It’s weird to frame this as winners and losers. I would say Blake did not succeed in what she set out to do. Some will phrase it more harshly. But the fact remains, she likely spent something like $30 million in legal fees and walked away with no money and the party that she sued is free to tell their story.

There are still a few other more minor matters for the court to take care of, one is that last year Justin‘s team sued Blake for something like $400 million in a defamation lawsuit. She is now seeking to get legal fees from that suit. It seems like a longshot, but even if she does, those fees would be small considering that suit got kicked out right away and there wasn’t a lot of time spent litigating that compared to the case we have been watching for the last 18 months.

There are also an ongoing suit against Jonesworks, the original PR firm WF hired, and some of the publicists who have since left that firm. Finally, Jed Wallace is suing Blake lively I believe for defamation and that is still ongoing.

Those are much more minor though I am sure they will get a lot of attention from the diehard folks that have been following, but the general public probably will not be as invested in those cases.

This is not accurate. Blake is not simply seeking attorneys fees in that case. She made the motion under a relatively new California law, 47.1, also known as the MeToo law. It may indeed come to nothing, I don't know, but the law itself allows for a lot more than attorneys fees (it allows for additional punitive damages). It's worth paying attention to this part of the case if only to see how that law is applied to these facts. This motion has attracted the interest of a bunch of very prominent advocacy organizations who filed amici (friend of the court) briefs in support of it last year.

The law seeks to punish people who attempt to sue survivors into silence, by forcing them to pay damages for filing unfounded defamation claims against survivors. The law is written to allow considerable damages, far beyond attorneys fees, but has never been applied before.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I guess I don’t understand if all of her sexual harassment claims were tossed out she would be getting fees from him? This could have major implications and set women and accusers way back.

So I can accuse someone of sexual harassment, they can stand up for themselves and counter because everyone has a right to use the court. My claims are tossed. And then I could sue them for fees? Make that make sense.

I understand it’s a new law that has not been tested, but I don’t think this was the intent of the law at all.

To put it in summary -- her claims were tossed not because the court made any findings about them -- it never got to that --- it was tossed on other grounds. So that has no bearing at all on the 47.1. It was intended exactly for this type of situation. A common tactic when accused on SH is to sue the complaining person with no real basis. This law was meant to stop that or at least limit it. So yes this is what the law was for. Unclear what will happen. Everything from nothing to a large award is on the table as this is a new law. I suspect this will also be settled at some point. I doubt this goes all the way.